"Missile strike on Sevastopol" Topic

Sounds like the Ukrainians managed to pull off a good hit on the Russian navy in Sevastopol. Details a bit thin on the ground (other than the usual press guesswork) but possibly 3 out of 10 Storm Shadows made it through the air defense and damaged some vessels. One of which may have been a sub. Keep going guys.

link

Apparently the preceding steps were (1) taking the oil platforms back, denying Russians access, and (2) taking out the radar unit in Crimea.

Now the Russians have lost a landing craft, a sub, and a drydock.

Ukraine Just Blew Up Two Russian Warships In Their Drydock

link

Armand

Russia is getting an a@@ whoopin'

If this continues Russia will lose its entire armed force. Russia has ceased to be a world "power" except for its nukes (if they work).

It is hard fighting to get them out of Ukraine will take time and hard fighting as they refuse to give up but apart from that Russia has/is nothing.

I find it a bit odd that the Black Sea fleet would maintain their ships in a Sevastopol drydock, considering how vulnerable that area has proven to Ukrainian long range attacks.

A ship in drydock is really a sitting duck as a target, with zero mobility. Granted, if hit, the craft is at least unlikely to sink.

Russia seems to be in denial about the situation – I assume institutional in nature because they can't admit that anything is going wrong with the 3-day special military operation. Heck there still seem to be tourists in Crimea…. Also I don't know what alternatives, if any, Russia has available in the Black Sea for that kind of work.

Though it was hardly undefended. Ukraine appears to have launched a fairly complex strike and set up for the operation by destroying that S-400 system and capturing the oil and gas platforms in the Black Sea.

I was under the impression that the Black Sea fleet lately preferred to spend their time in the eastern coast, in an effort to avoid attacks by the Ukrainian military – though even in that area there have been attacks by sea drones. I have no idea as to what kind of maintenance facilities the Black Sea fleet has over there.

One alternative to being maintained at the Black Sea would be to sail to farther away. Turkiÿe has stated that while they do not allow military vessels to sail into Black Sea, they allow them to sail out, so properly sea worthy craft could sail out to Mediterranean and Atlantic and then proceed to the naval bases in Murmansk or Baltic region (Kronstadt and Kaliningrad). Smaller craft could be able to get somewhere by travelling along the larger rivers running to Black Sea.

However, there might be some serious prestige issues preventing such operational retreat from the Black Sea, and even if it were authorised, the commanding officers might not be rewarded by many medals and promotions for their brave retreat.

Of course, if the craft has been already damaged in action then sailing it around Europe might not be an option, so a local shipyard is still a better choice than nothing.

Russia do not have other big drydock in Black Sea. They have 3 smaller ones in Novorosyisk but those are too small for bigger ships.

This was only functioning big drydock of Russian Black Sea Fleet – the most important asset and one of main reasons for Russians taking Crimea in 2014.

Blocking this drydock is a big win for our team.

Ukraine appears to have launched a fairly complex strike and set up for the operation by destroying that S-400 system and capturing the oil and gas platforms in the Black Sea.

And they seem to have taken out more radars (with drones) then missile defense systems (with naval cruise missiles).

This seems to be in addition to the previous strike.

BBC: link

Seems like they are kicking Russian butt ! Do the Russians have anyone who knows what they are doing ?

Storm Shadow vs a submarine, the mind boggles (and I can imagine how much fun a BROACH warhead would have going off inside would be!)

Cuprum 2?… maybe this are fake news?….

Armand

This news was broadcast on Russian news channels immediately after the attack… Here's an example for you – you can translate it yourself.

lenta.ru/news/2023/09/13/krbly

Nobody in Russia hides either defeats or victories. The damage to the submarine is not critical and requires minor repairs; the landing ship suffered much more serious damage as a result of the fire. The dry dock itself has no critical damage.
I don't see any serious reasons for concern. As Legion4 said, there is no war without losses.
Recently, more than a dozen Ukrainian boats carrying special forces have been destroyed in the Black Sea. Seventy people of perfectly trained saboteur soldiers. And what – do you need to make a grand show out of this? The usual military routine, which is unlikely to somehow affect the course of this war.

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa, it was the S-300 that was destroyed, not the S-400. Well done – thumbs up, they stung the Russian klutzes))) The only question is what is the overall score;)
Recently, the entire infrastructure of Ukrainian ports on the Black Sea was practically destroyed. So who's leading the score? ;)
And the oil platforms have been empty for a long time. The Ukrainians both landed on them and returned. Just a PR campaign.

Once upon a time, after the Battle of Poltava, Peter 1 seated the captured Swedish generals at the banquet table on the occasion of the victory and raised a toast to them: "To my teachers!" Well, this is also a wonderful lesson. We are learning)))

Recently, the entire infrastructure of Ukrainian ports on the Black Sea was practically destroyed. So who's leading the score? ;)

It was civilian grain exporting infrastructure.
Attacks on those are globally considered warcrime.
This will lead to raise hunger in Africa and of noncombatants in neutral countries. Another warcrime.

You are proud of warcrimes.

Yea Russians are worldchampions of warcrimes.

What obvious hypocrisy)))
Isn't the Nord Stream explosion a war crime? Explosion of the Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline by Ukrainians (supplying raw materials for the production of agricultural fertilizers, by the way)? Attack on the Crimean Bridge using a ship involved in the Grain Deal? And much more.
Why should Russia follow the rules where the West openly flouts them?
As for the supply of Ukrainian grain to poor countries, they received only 3% of the supply. Russia easily replaced these volumes for free.

Your arguments are irrelevant.

We do not know who is responsible for Nord Stream explosion. Russia is also suspected.

Crimean Bridge is used for transfering military cargo so it is legal military target. It is also illegaly build in internationally recognized Ukrainian territory (even by Russia itself in Budapestan Memorandum) so it is unauthorized construction (samovol'noye stroitel'stvo) and Ukraine gov't has legal power to deconstruct it.

I do not know who is responsible for explosion of Togliatti-Odessa pipeline.

We are not proud of any attacks on civilians. We condemn it. You are proud of it. Thats Your hypocrisy.

As for the supply of Ukrainian grain to poor countries, they received only 3% of the supply.

Your statement is false.

Not 3% but 57% of Ukraine grain went to undeveloped countries. According to the UN's Joint Coordination Centre, 57% of the foodstuffs exported from Ukraine under the deal went to developing countries, and 43% to developed countries.

Ukraine was the world's seventh-largest wheat producer and was forecasted to be the fifth-largest exporter for the 2021/22 marketing year. In 2021, Ukrainian wheat exports were valued at $5.1 USD billion, with Egypt, Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan, and Bangladesh as the primary destinations.

In the three marketing years prior to the war (2018/19, 2019/20, and 2020/21), Ukraine's exports made up 15% of world corn trade and 10% of world wheat trade. In this period, Ukraine was the world's fourth largest corn exporting country and the fifth largest wheat exporting country.

As of 2020/2021 marketing year, the export volume of cereal grain and grain legumes from Ukraine amounted to nearly 45 million metric tons, of which wheat, flour, and wheat products constituted over 16 million metric tons.

Russia easily replaced these volumes for free.

Russia will not easily replace those volumes. Albeit it will surely earn more from raised prices. In a statement to Reuters, Russia's agriculture ministry forecast grain exports will fall about 8% during the 2023/24 season from Russian last year's high of 60 million tonnes. Those record high 60 mln were also stolen Ukraine grain, thats so high. You cannot steal more grain this year, but You can burn it in Ukrainian silos to raise prices of Your grain. Thats hypocrisy.

Moreover attacking silos is warcrime. (Even in Medieval times they knew it – Pax Dei was protecting peasants plowing fields).

And You are proud of it.

Australian Perun about attacks on grain, from 22 minute:
YouTube link

"Seems like they are kicking Russian butt ! Do the Russians have anyone who knows what they are doing ?"

I think Putin had the only guy who had a clue killed.

That one Peruns movie is even better about the grain deal and terrorist attack of Russia at world food supply:
YouTube link
from 18 minute

The claim that the damage to the submarine is minor is something that I will wait to find out more about before taking at face value. A submarine is designed to withstand significant external pressure. An explosion on or near the submarine could easily damage this pressure vessel.
It would need very careful examination to confirm that there is no loss of integrity. From my chemical engineering background, such evaluation of pressure vessels is something that takes time to organize and carry out. The quick report that there is only minor damage would lead me to question whether a comprehensive evaluation has been completed.
I certainly would not be keen to put to sea in this submarine if a full evaluation had not been carried out.

Plus a fire in or near the submarine can damage the steel and destroy the steels ability to withstand pressure. If the steel is "hardened/tempered" and then is heated by fire the steel can no longer be "trusted".

In drydock a ship's hull is supported by keelblocks, which are set up in a specific pattern designed to distribute the weight according to engineering calculations for each class of ship. If the ship does not remain exactly where she is supposed to be in relation to the keelblocks, the internal structure of the hull can be damaged or warped. Disturbing ships while on the blocks can result in damage which renders the ship a total loss, even if there is no visible external damage to the hull.

I think Putin had the only guy who had a clue killed.

That would not surprise me ! As we see Putin does not know how to fight a war. But he can take massive loses in blood & treasure … With little to show for it.

Umpapa, Ukraine almost always denies its participation in sabotage, and only then admits it. This happened many times.
So, you don't know (and don't want to know) who committed these acts of sabotage. We know. And we don't need any of your evidence. This is war.

I have read the UN report and know its contents very well. If the West were interested in the problems of the hungry, they would lift the embargo on Russian food supplies to the poorest countries. But the West is not interested in the hungry – they are interested in causing damage to Russia and financial support for Ukraine. This is the real goal, and everything else is just speculation.

The use of a vessel taking part in deliveries under a grain deal directly in hostilities (attack on the Crimean Bridge) terminates any agreement. There's nothing more to discuss here. The deal is terminated here.

Neither we nor the Ukrainians can know what the real damage to the submarine is. So we'll have to wait and see. One thing is certain – it has not been destroyed.

Do you see any significant damage? I do not see.

Soledad and Inch High Guy – some great insights on metallurgy and ship supports

whats the total numbers of docks there?
turkey could stop surface vessels from getting in
could subs sneak in ?

link

See for yourself. If it is not a fake or hoax that sub might have lost its watertight integrity.

But Cuprum2 called it "minor damage" (which can be technically correct. Depends on how you measure damage…)

But I guess it Will take some time to fix it if the pictures are real.

Apart from that notice how Cuprum2 changes subject. Starts moaming about grain deals. Look up "gish galopp". Change subject, bring up all kinds of "facts", muddy the waters and suddenly you are trying to defend yourself against russian lies on a different subject.

That is not putting to sea anytime soon (if the pictures are real). I even suspect that it may never put to sea again. A hole like that on a surface ship is probably repairable. The USS Cole took 14 months to repair. On a submarine it is a whole different thing.It is not just going to be integrity around the breach, but the whole structure of the submarine.
If that is minor damage, then it is lucky that there is not major damage.

turkey could stop surface vessels from getting in

They announced quite a while ago that they are not allowing military craft to enter Black Sea (but exit is allowed).

could subs sneak in ?

Quite tricky – it would first need to travel through hundreds of kilometers of the Greek-controlled Aegean Sea, then through the Turkish Dardanelles, Marmaran Sea and finally through the Bhosphorus Straits. Not sure how deep and wide the last one is, but it might be a bit hazardous to transit deep underwater with a large military submarine.

That said, how much added value would a single extra submarine be in the Black Sea?

Well I suppose we'll see by satellite photos how quickly the rostov leaves the dry dock, and what becomes of it. From close up photos it looks like the paint was just scratched, or if not, it's just a Western fake.

link

I think that there is very little chance that a submarine could transit the Bosporus undetected. It's possibly the kind of caper that the Ukrainians could pull off on their current form- if they had a submarine of course.

Do you see any significant damage? I do not see.

…The Conflict Intelligence Team (CIT), which published the images, notes that the submarine was hit twice. The first of them is located on top in the bow of the submarine, which was previously reported by experts on the basis of satellite images. The second hit was on the starboard side of the boat in the area behind the wheelhouse…

Ukrainian Pravda: link

A photo of the damaged submarine was broadcast through Russian channels. Now we can say for sure that the submarine was seriously damaged. It will probably be written off, although it's not up to us to decide.
Well, this is an undoubted success of the Ukrainian side.

Soledad, before you whine, look at the title of the thread. The conversation is exclusively on this topic. All other issues are touched upon only because they were raised in the context of the discussion and are not the main topic of the conversation. So I returned to the topic under discussion, ceasing to discuss issues of secondary importance in this topic. And I recommend that you do the same ;-)

If the submarine has been seriously damaged, then the Ukrainians probably won't try a new strike at it in the drydock. That said, the Black Sea fleet leadership might want to seriously consider if they want to keep on using that drydock, now that it had been shown to be vulnerable to missile strikes.

Speaking of the Black Sea fleet, they do not seem to have a significant role currently in the "special military operation", though some of the craft act as launch platforms for cruise missiles.

Here is a good Russian article on this topic. Russia has big problems with its fleet:

How ready is the Russian Black Sea Fleet for war?

The special military operation in Ukraine became a difficult test for the Russian army, unfortunately revealing a considerable number of its problems. At present, our Ground Forces have already gone a long way in increasing their real combat capability, transforming from a peacetime "ceremonial" army into a real one, able to withstand the most formidable enemy. But what about the Russian navy?

Challenges of the times

It so happened historically that in the "great continental power" of Russia, the fleet has always been in last place in terms of priorities after the ground army and aviation. After the collapse of the USSR, when completely modern warships were scrapped or sold abroad, this imbalance only intensified.

The problems existing in the Russian Navy were aggravated when, after the events of 2014, Ukraine tripped up the Russian shipbuilding program by refusing to supply power plants for new frigates. This actually put an end to the continuation of the construction of Project 11356 frigates and greatly shifted to the right the launching dates for Project 22350/22350M frigates, which would become the main "workhorses" of the Russian Navy in the far sea and ocean zones. Under these conditions, a de facto "mosquitoization" of our navy occurred, when the main emphasis had to be placed on corvettes and small missile ships, built in large series.

These are the realities that must be taken into account when determining future trends. It was in this state that the Russian Navy approached a direct armed conflict with Ukraine and a proxy conflict with the NATO bloc in the Old World and US allies in the Asia-Pacific region.

Geographically, the Russian fleet today is divided into four fleets – the Northern and Pacific, Baltic and Black Sea, as well as one flotilla – the Caspian. The first two fleets are of strategic importance, since our few SSBNs carrying ICBMs are based there. The main task of the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet is to ensure the safe deployment of our missile submarines, which are the most important component of the "nuclear triad." The potential enemy of the North Sea is the combined fleet of the NATO bloc, the Pacific – the Japanese Self-Defense Forces and the US Navy.

What are the real combat missions of the Baltic Fleet, when the Baltic Sea has de facto become "internal" for the North Atlantic Alliance, Kaliningrad is an exclave, and the former GDR and the Baltic countries have turned from allies into potential adversaries, it is not entirely clear. In addition to the combined fleet of the NATO countries, the main threats to the DKBF are, rather, the aviation of the North Atlantic Alliance and even the conventional large-caliber barrel artillery of the Polish Army, with which it can sink our ships right at the base in Baltiysk.

Surprisingly, the Caspian Flotilla was not out of place, famously striking with Caliber cruise missiles at targets of terrorist groups in Syria. The fate of the Mediterranean squadron, which must be supplied through the straits controlled by Turkey and the NATO bloc, in the event of the outbreak of hostilities, was predetermined back in the Soviet period as "to die proudly, taking with it as many enemies as possible." In reality, our Black Sea Fleet faced the biggest problems.

Threats

During the NWO period, three warships sank in the Black Sea – the flagship missile cruiser "Moscow", the large landing ship "Saratov" and the tugboat "Vasily Bekh". Two more medium reconnaissance ships, Ivan Khurs and Priazovye, were attacked by Ukrainian naval drones, but were able to fight back. The relatively weakly armed patrol ship Sergei Kotov also managed to escape from them safely. The main naval base of the Russian Navy in Sevastopol was repeatedly attacked by air and sea drones of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Navy. Explosions also occurred at the Russian Navy Naval Aviation airfield in Crimea.

The main threats to ships and submarines of the Russian Black Sea Fleet are as follows:

Firstly, these are the Neptune and Harpoon ground-based anti-ship missiles, which do not allow them to safely approach the Ukrainian coast. There are only a few surface ships in the Black Sea Fleet capable of reliably intercepting low-flying anti-ship missiles: Project 11356 frigates, as well as the Project 22800 Karakurt Cyclone MRK, which recently became part of it.

Secondly, these are naval drones, or unmanned boats, filled with powerful explosive charges, which turns them into remote-controlled fire ships. It was they who were used by the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Ukrainian Naval Forces during attacks on the Crimean Bridge, the Russian Navy base in Sevastopol, as well as reconnaissance and patrol ships. This is a very serious, dangerous type of weapon that can be used both against Russian warships and against civilians. In addition, it should be remembered that Ukraine, with the help of British specialists, is working on attack underwater drones, which increases the level of threat in the Black Sea by an order of magnitude.

Thirdly, NATO fighters equipped with air-launched anti-ship missiles will pose an even greater threat to Russian Navy ships and coastal infrastructure. The fact that they will appear in Kyiv sooner or later, or rather sooner, does not raise the slightest doubt. In addition, anti-submarine helicopters, a number of which remain in Ukraine, are dangerous for the Russian Varshavyankas, plus Western-made rotorcraft can be supplied.

Solutions

The fact that our fleet will have to really fight seriously in the Black Sea can be judged by the following statement by the Kyiv regime, made after Russia's withdrawal from the grain deal:

from July 21, 2023 00:00 Kyiv time, all ships in Black Sea waters heading to the ports of the Russian Federation or temporarily occupied ports of Ukraine can be considered for risk assessment as ships carrying military cargo.
It is obvious that attacks on our warships will continue, and their intensity will only increase. In addition, there is a high probability that provocations will be carried out against civilian courts. On the one hand, Ukrainian drones can sink some peaceful cargo ship, after which the shipowners themselves will refuse to enter Russian ports. On the other hand, combat swimmers of the Naval Forces of Ukraine, trained by British specialists, can blow up a civilian ship while laying mines, subsequently blaming Moscow for this. The goal is new anti-Russian sanctions and the legalization of the presence of the Turkish Navy in the Black Sea, namely in Odessa, for protection.

What can be done realistically to counteract this?

First of all, a tough and impartial audit of the state of affairs in the Russian Navy with organizational conclusions regarding the command is necessary. Next, we need to prepare the fleet for war with a real enemy: start constantly conducting exercises to combat submarines, to intercept low-flying anti-ship missiles with air defense systems, so that the crews are prepared for what they will actually face. It is necessary to lay down a large series of small PLO corvettes based on the Project 22800 Karakurt MRK with increased displacement, and to begin production of the Be-200 seaplanes in the anti-submarine version.

As for the Black Sea Fleet specifically, it is necessary to intensify the actions of Naval Aviation: constant patrolling of the sea by anti-aircraft aircraft to detect enemy drones, escorting ships by fighter aircraft to avoid an "unexpected ambush" by enemy aircraft, which will approach at low altitude and fire a salvo of air-launched anti-ship missiles.

It is quite obvious that in the unfavorable conditions in which the Baltic Fleet finds itself, it is necessary to begin transferring part of its surface personnel to the Black Sea via the internal river system. All the Baltic Karakurts, which have a decent sea-based air defense system, small anti-submarine and small landing ships, should be sent there. This will allow us to immediately strengthen the air defense/missile defense umbrella over the Black Sea Fleet, and will also give reason to hope for future offensive operations in the Black Sea region.

dzen.ru/a/ZMezsffpOHtoL2xi

Thanks Cuprum… good explanation… as for your phrase…

"…What can be done realistically to counteract this?…"

IMHO… the best move would be establish diplomatic talks and return to the Status Quo prior to the "Special Military Operation"…

Armand

Maybe even more importantly, the drydock is now also out of the game until this boat can be moved. I don't know how much that sub was worth, but this just put a serious dent in the repair budget. Everybody in that port must be nervous as cats as they wait for the follow-up attacks. Staying in that port is just asking for defeat in detail.

Tactically, what can be done is to engage the shore targets by aggressively volleying your missiles and then move the the fleet out of the range of the Ukranians.

Tango01, this is no longer possible. All sides have already crossed their Rubicon.

You always ought to have a talk about peace… life is too short …. relatives and loved people died for…?

Told me please, this "Special Military Operation" … At this point of events… what would be their purpose?… no one in their right mind can even think about the conquest of Ukraine… maybe some of its territory?… If so… what is the maximum price to pay? … more thousands of lives?… War is something completely horrible… and those who do not condemn it have not suffered on your own skin…

Armand

Maybe even more importantly, the drydock is now also out of the game until this boat can be moved. I don't know how much that sub was worth, but this just put a serious dent in the repair budget.

On the other hand, since the submarine is in dry land, it can be disassembled and salvaged for spare parts to use on other similar submarines. Even though the hull has been compromised, a lot of the internal parts are presumably intact (unless there has been a major fire).

And the Ukrainian military might not bother dropping another missile on the drydock while the submarine remains are stuck there (they also have limited supply of long range missiles), though they might keep an eye for other interesting military targets in the surroundings.

Tactically, what can be done is to engage the shore targets by aggressively volleying your missiles and then move the the fleet out of the range of the Ukranians.

By my understanding, that is largely what the cruise missile launcing capable craft of the Black Sea fleet have largely been reduced to doing lately – sail within range, launch the missiles and then scoot farther away.

Not very much else they can do at the moment: launching an amphibious offensive to Ukrainian coast is not a realistic prospect, and neither seems to be blocking civilian shipping travelling on the western Black Sea coast to Ukrainian ports. And the Ukrainian navy does not have much left in the way of conventional military craft that they could duel with.

Tango, well, this is just demagoguery. People have always fought. War is just a continuation of politics by other means. Each country, like each person, has its own interests. And these interests often conflict with each other. In this case, there are only three options: either a mutually beneficial compromise, or fight, or betray your own interests and retreat (and then, most likely, you will again be subjected to even greater pressure).
Russia tried to negotiate and give in for a very long time. A very long time. But this was seen as weakness. Now Russia will fight.

The goal of the "Special Operation" was announced initially – in essence, it was the neutral status of Ukraine and the provision of equal rights to the Russian-speaking population. As the conflict continued (not only with Ukraine, but also in fact with NATO), it became clear that if Ukraine remained as a state, it would for a long time become a state hostile to Russia, on whose territory NATO troops would be located, under one pretext or another . In the context of an impending world war, it is better to eliminate this problem now. This is the whole logic of the current stage of the conflict.

As for the victims… Well, Western countries also regularly fight far beyond their borders, and suffer losses. This is the purpose of a man – to protect the interests of his people.

Don't you just love revisionist history. It is very difficult to achieve the original goals of the operation – de-nazification of Ukraine, when the original goals were a lie.

Returning to the OP, here is a Forbes article on the likely weapon: link

Time to get out of Dodge….

Thank you LostPic. Thought this was another thread lost to the same old rinse and repeat arguments. And yes, that submarine isn't returning to the high seas any time soon (if ever). Not sure how useful that is for the Ukranians, but a win is a win.

"The goal of the "Special Operation" was announced initially – in essence, it was the neutral status of Ukraine and the provision of equal rights to the Russian-speaking population"

In other words it was about invading and taking control of an independent country, by a paranoid fascist who prior to 2013 had talked about the Ukraine being part of Russia,

Tally Ho!

Nickinsomerset + 1

Armand

Returning to the OP, here is a Forbes article on the likely weapon

If one of the warheads of the Shadow Storm missile really went off inside the submarine, that might limit how much salvageable material there will be left inside in that end of the sub.

And yes, that submarine isn't returning to the high seas any time soon (if ever). Not sure how useful that is for the Ukranians, but a win is a win.

Presuming it was capable of launching cruise missiles, then that is one less launch platform – but the Russian military should have plenty left (it is the missile manufacturing capacity that is a bigger limitation at the moment in their use).

Then there are the prestige, morale and psychological effects that are mmore difficult to quantify.

Griefbringer. Your comment made me look at the photos in a new way. The main damage looks to be the hit from the missile. However, could the other damage area be from the blast wave traveling inside the sub and causing over pressure? The damage looks to my very amateur eye to be from the inside out. If so it would mean that the recovery value would be low.

I would be careful of making too far-stretching conclusions from a single picture, but you make an interesting point – the second hole seems to be at the tail of the submarine, where the pressure wave could not travel further inside the hull. Submarine hulls are designed to handle high external pressures, but not high internal pressures.

On more recent news, the cruise missile attacks on Black Sea fleet assets in Sevastopol seem to continue; this time the target has been a fleet headquarters building.

I have spent a Navy career maintaining and buildings ships in shipyards. Most likely the damage control fittings (watertight doors, hatches, etc.) were mostly open and blocked with ventilation hoses, power cables, etc. used to service the sub. As such the pressure wave probably travelled through-out the ship causing great havoc with machinery and watch standers. In an American shipyard, the crew would be berthed off-board and at 0200 probably only a minimal security and firewatch would be on board. Presumably a conflaguration torched the inside of the ship and it would be very difficult to extinguish since normal damage control protocols were not in place. For reference read about tbe USS Miami and USS Bonhomme Richard fires. Presumably tbe munitions abd fuel had been off-loaded or the extent of the damage would be even greater.